Progressive Democrats are once more rallying around the idea that they must get rid of the filibuster to achieve their political goals. This time, it's to do with the U.S. Supreme Court allowing a Texas abortion law to take effect that restricts most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is at around six weeks.
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) was at the forefront of calling yet again to not just get rid of the filibuster, but to expand the Supreme Court.
Republicans promised to overturn Roe v Wade, and they have.
— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) September 2, 2021
Democrats can either abolish the filibuster and expand the court, or do nothing as millions of peoples’ bodies, rights, and lives are sacrificed for far-right minority rule.
This shouldn’t be a difficult decision. https://t.co/GcEjkxt3gs
Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a fellow New York Democrat, also had the same sense of urgency.
There are no repercussions worse than the court overturning Roe.
— Carolyn B. Maloney (@RepMaloney) September 1, 2021
Eliminate the filibuster. Expand the court.
It's not just the congresswomen, though. As Grace Segers writes for The New Republic, in promotion of the Women's Health Protection Act (WHPA), which would codify Roe:
With Democrats in control of both houses of Congress as well as the White House, passing this bill would seem on the surface to be an easy task. But there’s a complicating factor: the filibuster.
Now it’s time for the requisite description of the filibuster, that omnipresent legislative precedent and scourge of progressives. Most legislation requires 60 votes to advance in the Senate. Democrats hold a razor-thin majority of 50 seats, meaning that they would need support from at least 10 Republicans for the Women’s Health Protection Act or any similar bill to pass. (This is assuming that all 50 Democrats would support the WHPA, which is far from certain. Two Democrats, Senators Joe Manchin and Bob Casey, have previously identified as pro-life, even as they opposed Trump’s Supreme Court nominees. Manchin and Casey are the only two Democratic senators who are not co-sponsors of the WHPA.) Republican Senators Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski support the right to an abortion, but two Republican votes are hardly enough to pass the bill, even if it had universal Democratic support.
It's worth noting, though, that the minority lacking protection of the filibuster could just as easily come back to haunt AOC and her ilk once the Democrats are no longer in power. If Democrats can more easily codify Roe v. Wade, then Republicans will then be more easily able to pass pro-life legislation.
Recommended
One of the few remaining Democratic proponents of the filibuster, Sen. Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona, is aware of this very concern. She not only supports the filibuster, but the WHPA. In an op-ed for The Washington Post from June, Sinema wrote:
And, sometimes, the filibuster, as it’s been used in previous Congresses, is needed to protect against attacks on women’s health, clean air and water, or aid to children and families in need.
...
To those who want to eliminate the legislative filibuster to expand health-care access or retirement benefits: Would it be good for our country if we did, only to later see that legislation replaced by legislation dividing Medicaid into block grants, slashing earned Social Security and Medicare benefits, or defunding women’s reproductive health services?
Such pro-life legislation isn't merely hypothetical. The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which is legislation from Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) would have passed if not for the filibuster; it enjoyed support from a a majority of senators, including even some Democrats, but it could not get pass the 60-vote threshold. The same goes for The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, which restricts most abortions past 20-weeks at the federal level.
